The hallowed halls of the Lok Sabha recently transformed into a linguistic battleground. The spark? The introduction of the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Bill, 2025. While the bill's substance—allowing 100% foreign investment in insurance—is significant, the primary friction point was its title. Opposition MPs, led by N.K. Premachandran and Sougata Ray, decried the "Hindiisation" of legislation, arguing that using Hindi phrases in the authoritative English text of a bill violates both established parliamentary convention and constitutional mandates.
This debate is not merely a semantic squabble; it touches upon the very core of India’s federal identity and the legal framework that binds its diverse linguistic landscape.
The Constitutional Mandate: A Case for English
The crux of the Opposition’s argument lies in Article 348 of the Indian Constitution. It explicitly states that until Parliament provides otherwise by law, the "authoritative texts" of all Bills, Acts, and Ordinances shall be in the English language.
Historically, this has meant that while a Hindi version of a bill is circulated, the title in the English version remains in English (e.g., the Indian Penal Code). Critics argue that by embedding Hindi titles like Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha into the English text, the government is blurring legal lines. They contend that a law’s title must clearly communicate its intent to the entire nation, including the millions in non-Hindi speaking states for whom these titles may be unpronounceable or opaque.
The Government’s Defense: Hindi as an Official Language
On the other side of the aisle, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju and Speaker Om Birla have maintained that such naming is well within the government’s jurisdiction. Their justification rests on two pillars:
Article 343: This recognizes Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union.
The Official Languages Act, 1963: This allows for the continued use of both Hindi and English for official purposes.
From the government’s perspective, naming a bill in Hindi is an act of cultural decolonization—moving away from British-era nomenclature to embrace an indigenous identity. They argue that as long as the substantive text of the bill remains in English, Article 348 is technically satisfied.
A Critical Perspective: Is it Justified?
Is the shift justified? The answer depends on whether one views the law as a symbol of national identity or a tool for functional governance.
The Justification of Identity: If the goal is to promote Hindi as a unifying national language, the government’s move is consistent with the directive principle in Article 351, which tasks the Union with the "progressive use of the Hindi language." In this light, a Hindi title is a symbolic reclamation of Indian legal heritage.
The Problem of Functionality: However, from a journalist’s and a legal practitioner's lens, the "justification" falters when it compromises accessibility. Law is a public instrument. When a citizen in Kerala or West Bengal cannot understand the name of a law that governs their insurance or criminal rights without a translation, the law fails its primary duty of clarity.
Furthermore, the "authoritative text" clause in Article 348 exists to prevent legal ambiguity. If a Hindi title carries a nuance different from its English translation, which one prevails in a High Court?
Final Take
The "Hindiisation" of bill titles represents a shift toward a more centralized cultural narrative. While the Constitution permits the use of Hindi for official purposes, the spirit of Article 348 emphasizes a common, accessible legal standard—which, for now, remains English. Until Parliament passes a specific law to change the language of the authoritative text, the government’s move will continue to be viewed by critics as a "political messaging" exercise that risks alienating the non-Hindi speaking periphery.
By Gautam Jha
Managing Editor
